International Journal of Business and Management; Vol. 15, No. 8; 2020 ISSN 1833-3850 E-ISSN 1833-8119

Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education

152

Esg or Not Esg? A Benchmarking Analysis Valeria Vannoni1 & Emanuele Ciotti2

1 University of Perugia, Department of Economics, Perugia, Italy 2 Fideuram Bank, Perugia, Italy Correspondence: Valeria Vannoni, University of Perugia, Department of Economics, Italy. E-mail: valeria.vannoni@unipg.it Received: May 7, 2020 Accepted: June 22, 2020 Online Published: July 31, 2020 doi:10.5539/ijbm.v15n8p152 URL: https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v15n8p152 Abstract Sustainable investments are increasingly leaving their niche position to enter financial markets in a remarkable way in recent years. In this scenario, ESG (Enviromental, Social, Governance) practices are emerging alongside the risk-return approaches that for years have exclusively determined the portfolio choices of investors. This paper aims to give a contribution to the flourishing debate on the application of ESG criteria to investments’ selection, using a case study through a benchmarking approach. The empirical investigation focuses on a two-level analysis of GIS Global Bond ESG Fund (EUR Hedged), managed by PIMCO management company. Results highlight that ESG practises should be referred more as a complementary rather than alternative approach for portfolio management. Keywords: esg, sustainable investment, impact investing JEL codes: G11, Q01. 1. Introduction The demand for investments that combine financial return with desired social or environmental impact is growing: redirecting investment and finance to impact oriented investments compatible with the UN Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris Agreement is a key factor in turning around the investment philosophy. The concept of sustainable investment has spread since the 1960s, but still lacks a clear definition: the Global Sustainable Investment Alliance (GSIA) considers it as an investment approach that includes the ESG (Environmental, Social and Governance) facts in the selection and management of the portfolio (Tyler, 2018). Moreover, sustainable investment and ESG criteria are inevitably connected topics. The interest in the search for a virtuous relationship between the real and financial economy has returned to assert itself following the latest financial crisis, that has imposed, on a global level, a rethinking on the role of the financial system in support of the real economy and on the way in which to interpret the same role. The ethical profile of the investments and the responsible behavior of the investors represent an important way for bringing economy and finance closer together, allowing to draw attention to the social dimension of the phenomena. In this context, a new form of finance is emerging, as a sustainable investment strategy, the so-called impact investing. Although the sustainable investment market has traditionally been driven by institutional investors, there is growing interest in this sector also from private investors. Our study focuses on the analysis of the GIS Global Bond ESG Fund (EUR Hedged) managed by PIMCO (Pacific Investment Management Company, LLC), one of the leading bond investment management companies (about $ 1.844 billion in AuM, as end of June, 2019). Our choice fell on PIMCO's GIS Global Bond ESG Fund (EUR Hedged) because it is one of the first funds in the world to implement impact investing strategies within its investment portfolio, as well as one of the top 40 funds in Europe according to AuM. The paper is organized as follows: paragraph 1 reviews the literature on the topic; paragraph 2 is for the empirical analysis; the last section concludes by commenting main results and suggesting for further research. 2. Literature Review The application of ESG criteria to financial investments is becoming increasingly popular among operators; this trend has led to the development of a flourishing literature on related topics also in academic research. Integrating environmental, social and governance impacts into investment and financial decision making and

ijbm.ccsenet.org International Journal of Business and Management Vol. 15, No. 8; 2020

153

especially focusing on the upside of ESG (positive) impact investing is a nascent field of research (Wendt, 2017). This review proposes a classification of the main contributions in recent years into two main strands: the first one explores investors' motivations to adopt ESG approach; the second one deals with the relationship between ESG criteria and investments’ performance. In the first strand, contributions identify two main groups of reasons that push investors towards esg approaches: personal attitudes; regulations-oriented behaviours towards sustainability issues. Brodback et al. (2018) provide survey evidence that there is a positive link between altruistic values and the relative importance of social responsibility and this effect is stronger when investors believe that they can make a positive social or environmental impact. Following the value-belief-norm theory (Stern et al., 1999), authors argue that egoistic values are negatively associated with the decision to invest responsibly. Brest et al. (2018), observing that an increasing number of socially motivated investors have goals beyond maximizing profits, deepen the topic of social value. They distinguish investors that seek investments aligned with their social values (value alignment) and investors that may also want their investments to make portfolio companies more social value (social value creation). The thrust of this essay is that while it is relatively easy to achieve value alignment, creating social value is much more difficult. Schramade (2017) refers to UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as an engine for a path to value creation, both for society and shareholders. Bialkowski and Starks (2016), using a difference in difference approach, provide evidence that investor demand for socially responsible or sustainable and responsible funds results from investors’ non-financial considerations. Moliterni (2018) addresses the topic considering esg criteria as an investment approach within sustainable investment, which can be traced back to seven main strategies: negative screening, norm-based screening, ESG integration, corporate engagement, best-in-class screening, impact investing, sustainability themed investing. Grabenwarter (2017) suggests a new form of “impact first” investing: rather than applying merely a negative screening filter that seeks to identify within a pool of random impact investment opportunities those that happen to meet a given risk/return profile, the focus needs to be on funding concrete impact solutions; once identified, impact solutions shall be translated into financial instruments which combine the risk/return profiles of a sufficiently large spectrum of investors in order to get a given impact solution funded. About ESG motivations, customer demand is certainly a key factor in the diffusion of these forms of investment, but another important aspect is the behavior of asset managers, with particular regard to their compliance with a kind of fiduciary duty towards investors: in this sense, we can refer to the study of Duuren at al. (2016), which on the basis of an international survey among fund managers find that many conventional managers integrate responsible investing in their investment process, using esg information for red flagging and to manage risk. Among the studies that deepen the topic of motivations to adopt ESG approaches in compliance with regulations, we can cite Wilson (2016) and Grabenwarter (2017), that consider the Sustainable Development Goals as business opportunities. Finally, other empirical evidence shows that investors incorporate religious and political values as well as social norms in their investment decisions (Hong & Kostovetsky, 2012). In the other strand, Landier and Nair (2009) had a first approach to the topic, building a so-called responsible portfolio, starting from the S&P500 and therefore eliminating, year by year, companies that lacked sustainability, based on the KLD Analytics scores. They demonstated that it is possible to include esg criteria in portfolio choices without affecting financial returns. Weber et al. (2014) compare the aggregate performance of some SRI funds with the MSCI World Index and highlight that, on average, the SRI funds performed better than the index, but relying only on sustainability scores in the investment process does not lead to a positive financial return, therefore financial and esg analysis must be integrated. Verheyden et al. (2016) tested the effects of using different esg filters on an investable universe that serve sas the starting point for a fund manager, attempting to determine the extent to which esg data can add value to any investment approach. Their finding is that the incorporation of esg information contributes to better decision-making in every investment approach, with an unequivocally positive impact on risk-adjusted returns, using a 10% best-in-class screening approach. Soler-Domínguez and Matallín-Sáez (2016) assess the performance of the VICEX Fund, which is morally controversial due to its higher return premium on investments in well-established vice companies, representing an opposite extreme for socially responsible mutual funds Their findings suggest that the VICEX Fund underperforms during periods of economic distress, while it outperforms the market during expansion periods. Borgers et al. (2015) suggest that fund managers do not tilt heavily towards controversial stocks because of social considerations and practical constraints. About ESG ratings and Performance, we can also cite the following studies: Capelle-Blancard and Monjon (2014), Halbritter and Dorfleitner (2015), Brière and Szafarz (2017), Durán-Santomil et al. (2019), Galagedera (2019).

ijbm.ccsen

3. EmpirConsideriGlobal Bthe GIS GGlobal Bfoundatiointegratioapproach1) CharaThe Globconsistingthan BBBthe fund This fundsame timoutperforintent on Index; thmillion (asecuritieswith a higAbout seinvestmensegment aof the totlow as 80difficult mvolatility presence investmenFrom a rebonds, wthe enviroregard to project inas bankinbonds areEurope an(12%) an

Source: Pim

The selecof the mamarket (e

net.org

rical Analysising the explorond ESG FunGlobal Bond Bond ESG Fon of the studyon of esg critehes and performcteristics of thbal Bond ESg of a basket B rated), selecis to maximi

d allows inveme, have a posrmance compaoptimizing th

he managemenas end of Junes (100% bondgh credit ratinectors, the mnt grade crediand emergingtal). Portfolio 0%, indicatingmacroeconomdue to differof an ESG scnt portfolio. esponsible inv

worldwide issuonment, such the sectoral b

nitiatives of Sung, utilities, ae attributable fnd, finally, the

nd the rest of th

mco, 2019.

ction of fixed-ain market treeg duration of

Int

s ratory nature ond (EUR HedgESG Fund (Eund and Bloy can be traceeria on a bonmance of invehe GIS GlobalSG Fund is c

of worldwidected through aze total returnstors to benefsitive social imared to the behem. Benchmnt start date ise, 2019). The ) and, in parti

ng (over 95% omain part is tit (overall, abo

g foreign curreconsists of ov

g a strong concmic context, wrent geo-politireening, furth

vesting perspeued, ie fixed in

as, for exampbreakdown (Fiupranational A

automotive, refor approximae remaining hhe world (16%

-income securends (eg. envf the securitie

ternational Jour

of our study, wged) managedEUR Hedged)oomberg Barced back to thend portfolio. Testments. l Bond ESG Fcharacterized e fixed incomean ESG screenn, compatiblyfit from a potmpact. The brnchmark, givimark main refs February 9,2ESG Global

icular, both froof the bonds hthat one of out 90% of thency debt reprver 550 securcentration (su

with particularical factors w

her reduces the

ective, it is intncome securitple, efficiency igure no. 1), thAgencies, andeal estate or iately one thirdhalf is almost e%).

Figure 1.

rities takes plaironment, dems, yield curve

rnal of Business

154

we adopted a qd by PIMCO. T); 2) Benchmaclays Global e paper by DeThe research

Fund (EUR Heby a diversie securities, m

ning process dy with capitaltential return road diversifiing preferencference is Blo2017; referenBond (EUR H

rom corporate have a rating esemi-governm

he total), whileresent only a srities bonds, euch as in US Trly compresse

which significae list of fixed

teresting to noties whose iss

y energy, cleanthe fund invesd to projects bindustrial servd to North Amequally divide

. Green bonds

ace through amography, tece, volatility, in

s and Managem

qualitative appThe analysis iarking analysi

Aggregate Iesclée et al. (2question deal

edged) fied portfolio

mainly investmdeveloped by Pl protection ansimilar to othication of the e to issuers w

oomberg Barclnce currency iHedged) is cobonds (48.66

equal to or gremental instrume the municipsmall portion oven if the we

Treasuries). Thd global rates

antly reduce pincome secur

ote that over 1sue is linked tn energy produsts in green boby firms belonvices. As for

merica (17% Ued between Ja

s exposure

a very rigorouchnology); 2) nterest rates, c

ment

proach using ais on two leveis, through condex (benchm

2016), who stuls with the re

o of actively ment grade boPIMCO. The nd prudent inher ‘core’ bon

fund can offewith the best Elays Global Ais USD (US domposed exclu6%) and govereater than BBBments, securial bond markof the investmight of the firhis situation iss and, at the sprofitable alteities capable o

10% of the futo projects wiuction and susonds linked bonging to manythe geograph

U.S.A. and 16%pan (17%), su

s approach, inanalysis of m

credit trends);

Vol. 15, N

a case study oels: 1) Charactomparison betmark). The ttudied the impelationship be

managed invonds (generallinvestment ob

nvestment mannd strategies afer potential toESG practices Aggregate (Eurdollar); Equityusively of fixernment bondsB). itized investm

ket, the high yment portfolio rst 10 items acs probably duesame time, a

ernatives; morof being inclu

und is investedith a positive stainable landoth to governmy different sechical distributi% Canada), ovupranational in

n four steps: 1main trends in 3) identificat

No. 8; 2020

on the GIS teristics of tween GIS theoretical pact of the tween esg

vestments, ly not less bjective of nagement. and, at the o generate and those

ro Hedged) y: $ 677.5 ed-income s (51.34%)

ments and yield credit

(around 7% ccounts as e to a very very high

reover, the uded in the

d in Green impact on

d use. With mental and ctors, such ion, green ver 20% to nstitutions

1) analysis n the bond tion of the

ijbm.ccsen

fund's obinvestmenadopts anpositive cThe first profoundPIMCO acorporateparticularproductioand/or dithan 10%states or United NCouncil, filter, PIMprinciplesunacceptabonds, inThe secoterms, takpractices own interto corporpractices E, S and the envirothe sociafactor forsuch ESGprecisely evaluatioPIMCO'sSocial, Gthe final increasedintroductishare of Dame Glgovernmeindicatorsbiodivers

Source: Pim

net.org

bjectives (in tnt portfolio (mn internally dchanges, that iE is for “Ex

dly misalignedadopts a doube bonds, the mrly polluting on of controvstribution of c

% from these supranational

Nations, humanor that are ch

MCO adds a s. In particulaable working

nstead, the funnd E is for “Ekes into accoand present i

rnally created rate credit, PIintegrated in G are analyz

onmental factal factor has tr financial comG practices ov

from the comn of the fund

s ESG scoringGovernance an

score attributd considerablyion of the follrenewable enlobal Adaptatents of most cs that evaluatsity, overfishin

mco, 2019.

Int

terms of duramonitoring liqdeveloped scris the so-calle

xclusions” andd with the prinble exclusion main core excand harmful ersial weaponcarbon. In parbusinesses. Aentities that h

n rights or intharacterized bdynamic list

ar, with regardpractices, whid excludes goEvaluation” aount those issimportant marsystem for as

IMCO's ESG the business p

zed separately or has the mothe greatest wmpanies); b) tver time, to cmbination of damentals of g system takend Internationted to governy in the last pelowing elemennergy and C02tion Initiative countries vulnte the natura

ng or the deter

ternational Jour

ation, credit qquidity, credit eening procesd “3E screenin

d it means thanciples of socfilter, the firs

clusions concto the enviro

ns (eg cluster rticular, PIMC

As for governhave been seriternational laby low transpaof issuers tha

d to corporate ich violate hu

overnment bonnd it means t

suers that are rgins for ESGssigning an ES

scoring systeprocesses of aand have rel

ost important wweight in the the trend of sucheck if they these two facthe asset, wil

es into accounnal Sanctions. ment and sup

eriod, and its ants: a) risk me2 emissions); Country Ind

nerable; c) heal resources (erioration of oc

Figur

rnal of Business

155

quality, geograrisk and fundss, which is ng” process: Eat fixed incomcial and envirost one is “cor

cern those issuonment, with

bombs and mCO tends to enment bonds, riously stainedbor conventioarency and higat, regardlesssecurities, the

uman rights annds of countrithat PIMCO, i

distinguishedG improvemenSG score, for em takes intoan issuer, compative weightsweight for thopharmaceutic

uch ESG pracare following

ctors that thell make up th

nt multiple faEach of these

pranational boanalysis has beasures related

b) climate-redex, which mealth and enviroeg: the Oceacean health).

re 2. Esg indic

s and Managem

aphical compodamentals). In based on threExclusions, Evme securities onmental sustre”, the seconuing compania poor ethica

mines), tobacexclude those

instead, the md violations rens, that have gh corruption of the sector

e fund tends tond/or have a pes with poor ein addition tod by the use

nt. Moreover, Peach different

o account twopared to its co, depending o

ose companiescal sector, whctices: PIMCOg an improvin overall scorehe final judgmctors attributae macro-areasonds. The weieen made mord to the climatelated physicaeasures the imonmental indean Health Ind

cators

ment

osition, etc.); addition to al

ee key elemevaluation, Engattributable to

tainability are nd one is “dynies which belal profile, succo, pornograpissuers whosemain core ex

elating to the Gbeen sanction

n rates. To thisr, it considerso exclude thosoor managemenvironmental excluding thof robust soc

PIMCO select type of credi factors: a) th

ompetitors in ton the type ofs that operate ihile governancO constantly mng or a deterie emerges, whment. Regardable to 4 macs has its own ight of the enre detailed andtic transition (al risk measurmpact on the exes (eg exposdex, which m

Vol. 15, N

4) constructill these factorents aimed at gagement. o issuers deem excluded. Spnamic”. Withlong to sectorch as the secphy and the pe revenues de

xclusions concGlobal Principned by the UNs first ‘static’ s misaligned se companies

ment. As for gol practices.

he worst issuecial and envi

cts securities tit obligation. Ahe validity ofthe same sectof industry; forin the extractice is the mos

monitors the piorating trajec

which, togetherding governmecro-areas: Env

weight and dnvironmental d precise thro(eg share of fo

ures: includes cost of capit

sure to air polmeasures the d

No. 8; 2020

ion of the s, PIMCO influence

med to be pecifically, h regard to rs that are ctor of the production erive more cern those ples of the N Security

exclusion with ESG that adopt

overnment

ers in ESG ironmental through its As regards f the ESG or (factors r example, ive sectors, st relevant progress of ctory. It is r with the ent credit, vironment, determines factor has

ough to the ossil fuels, the Notre

tal for the llution); d) decline of

ijbm.ccsen

For the mdistinguis(non-agenGlobal BSupport h(especiallPIMCO sresponsibgranted oincome raof the funshows thago to meesubstantia

Source: Pim

Finally, aan internathree macsustainabeach factthe refereThe last cand collapositive ieach issuon whichand perfocompetitobeginningoverweigconsistenFigure noaverage ahedging. result muto the parthere haspositione

net.org

mortgage bondshes betweenncy MBS) an

Bond ESG funhomeownershly if first homseeks to privible lending: PIonly to those atio of the bornd the debt sat the mortgaget mainly primal in terms of

mco, Fannie Mae,

as regards the al rating systecro-areas of reble developmetor and of eacence sector. constituent eleaborative commimpact on theer thanks to an

h the profiles formance of tors, evaluate g, and discus

ght those issuent in meeting to. 4 shows thannual return In particular,

ust, however, brticular characs been a signd themselves

Int

d market, evenn agency mond provides and seeks to puhip: PIMCO s

me and / or in ulege mortgageIMCO seeks table to susta

rrower; d) discecurities relatges investmen

mary needs sucdisbursed cap

Figure 3. , Freddie Mac, Gi

U.S. market Mem that takes eference of theent goals of thch macro-area

ement that drimitment that

e environmentn ad hoc interof each finan

the different the possible

ss with manaers that demothe UN's sustahat the fund h

for the invesafter a good s

be interpreted cteristics of thnificant rally in positive ter

ternational Jour

n in this case Portgages-backea score from ursue the folleeks to favor

uninhabited nees for low-incto protect morain a reasonabcourage predated to loans gnts with a highch as buying a

pital, thus gene

Mortgage invinnie Mae.

Municipal boninto account

e ESG (Envirohe United Na

a; the scores o

ves PIMCO toissuers take int and society. rnally developnced companystrategies adoprogress or

agement if thonstrate a cleaainable develoas had a goodstor of approxstart in 2017 (in relation to e fund. In 201of the marke

rritory; the GI

rnal of Business

156

PIMCO has ped securities 1 (weakest) tlowing 4 objemortgages fo

eighborhoods)come borrowertgage borrowble plan of reatory lending agranted through ESG score, a first home, herating a bene

vestments acro

nd, PIMCO, wmultiple qua

onmental, Socations (SDGs)of each macro

to select an invn order to imp PIMCO anal

ped database, ty are loaded; oopted by the deterioration

here are changar willingness

opment goals (d performancximately 1%, (+ 1.5%), the a particularly19, however, dets and all thIS Global Bon

s and Managem

proceeded to b(MBS) and

to 5 (best). Sectives in ordor the purchas); b) Increase ers, so as to g

wers, by investeturn, that is and servicinggh harmful prin which the

have a lower defit for the mo

oss different e

with the suppolitative and qucial and Gove). Each munico-area are, the

vestment is “Eprove their Elyzes constanthat is COMEover time, PIM

companies wn with respecges to be mas to move tow(SDGs). e, starting fronet of managfund perform

y adverse markdespite the nuhe performannd ESG (EUR

ment

build an internnon-agency

pecifically, thder to generatse of houses faccess for und

generate a socting in debt sepaying close : PIMCO exclractices againGIS Global B

debt-to-incomost distressed p

sg profiles

rt of independuantitative facrnance) and, mcipal bond is en, weighted b

Engagement”,SG practices tly the progre

ET (Company MCO's globalwith respect t to the ESGade. In this wwards best pra

om its launch gement costs

mance declinedket context, thmerous geopoces of the m

R Hedged) full

Vol. 15, N

nal rating systeresidential m

he manager ote a positive ifor residentialderserved comcial benefit; cecurities relate

attention to ludes from the

nst borrowers.Bond ESG fun

me ratio and thepopulation.

dent analysts, ctors attributamore specificavalued on th

by the relevan

, that is the coover time, geess and commEngagement T

al analysts anato those one

G objectives way, the portactices related

in 2017, genand exchange

d in 2018 (-3.2herefore not aolitical risks st

main asset claly recovered a

No. 8; 2020

em, which mortgages

of the GIS impact: a) l purposes

mmunities: ) Promote

ed to loans the debt / e portfolio Figure X nd invests, ey are less

has set up able to the ally, to the

he basis of nce within

onstructive enerating a mitment of Tracking), alyze risks s of their set at the tfolio will d to ESG,

erating an e rate risk 26%); this ttributable till strong,

asses have all the loss

ijbm.ccsen

suffered iglance, inrisks born

Source: Fid

Table 1. G

Source: Fid

Data showvery shor2) Comp(benchmaThe Blooon the pegrade secdevelopedindices, ithe Canad Table 2. AAsset class Semi-gover

Inflation ind

SupranationSecuritized Covered boInvestment High Yield Municipal Emerging dEmerging dOthers – shSource: Fid

net.org

in 2018 (+ 4.n a global flat ne by the inve

deuram Bank.

GIS Global Bo

deuram Bank.

w a very solidrt. parison betweark) omberg Barclaerformance of curities and ind and emergii.e.: the U.S. Adian Aggregat

Asset allocatio

rnmental

dexed

nal entities

ond and Pfandbriegrade credit Credit

debt in foreign curdebt in local currehort term (duratdeuram Bank.

Int

.69% comparerate environm

estor. Figure 5

Fig

ond ESG, riskIndex VaR 1d95%

VaR 3m95

Volatility 6

Volatility 1Max drawdRecovery pRecovery pSharpe ind

d fund, in part

een GIS Glob

ays Global Agglobal bond mcludes treasuring countries.Aggregate indte index. Table

on

efe

rrency ency tion)

ternational Jour

ed to the prevment performa

summarizes m

gure 4. GIS G

k profile

%

5%

6m

1y down 6m, 1y period, 6m period, 1y dex

ticular the Sha

bal Bond ES

ggregate Indexmarkets. Specry, governmen. The main cdex, the Pan-Ee 2 shows the

Asset allocat

43.40

5.20

7.50 31.80 9.30 21.60

1.80 3.40 1.40

(9.70) (15.60)

rnal of Business

157

vious year). Wances (net of cmain data abo

Global Bond E

value0.22%

1.73%

3.02%

2.48%(2.11%13 dd

52 1.

arpe index is

SG Fund and

x (Euro Hedgecifically, it is ant securities, components oEuropean Aggasset allocati

tion of fund

s and Managem

While yields mcosts) are veryout risk profile

SG, performa

%

%

%

% %)

dd .78

very high and

d Bloomberg

ed) is a bencha multi-currencorporate and f the benchmgregate indexon of the fund

Ass

51.4

0.00

3.9012.52.7017.9

ment

may not seemy good, espece of the fund.

nce

d the recovery

Barclays Gl

hmark that offncy index of fisecuritized se

mark are the f, the Asian-Pad and of the be

et allocation of b

40

0

0 50 0 90 0.00 5.20 3.20 3.30 0.00

Vol. 15, N

m overwhelmicially if compa

y times of the

lobal Aggreg

fers a general ixed income inecurities relatifollowing fouacific Aggregenchmark.

benchmark

No. 8; 2020

ng at first ared to the

losses are

gate Index

indication nvestment ng to both

ur regional gate index,

ijbm.ccsen

The fundbenchmarparticularhold shorsecuritizeFigure 5 with an aESG scre

Source: MS

Table 3 sh Table 3. P

Gross perfo

Gross perfo

Average per

Duration Volatility Max DrawdSharpe indSource: Fid To “neutcalculatedspecific cequal to 0By investUS dollaneeds and

net.org

d underweighrk: specificallr, that one of ert positions. Ced segment wishows the cre

average ratingeening of the f

SCI.

hows main da

Performances

ormance 2018

ormance 2019

rformance

down dex deuram Bank.

tralize” the Pd the gross pecase of the Pim0. Performancting in Pimco

ars invested, id wellbeing. A

Int

hts some sectly, the fund sigemerging deb

Conversely, theith a particularedi risk profileg higher than tfund.

Figu

ata about perfo

PIMCO manaerformances bymco Global B

ces are quite siGlobal Bond

in terms of: dA particular m

ternational Jour

tors, while agnificantly unt in local curre main overwr emphasis one of investmenthe benchmark

ure 5. MSCI E

ormances and

PIMCO Glob

(1.84%)

6.11%

2.14%

6,8 yy 2.48% 2.11%

1.78%

gement costsy adding the r

Bond ESG, areimilar, while i ESG, investodecent work, etric is used fo

rnal of Business

158

assumes highnderweights thrency and othe

weighted sectorn the ESG pronts. The GIS Gk; this result c

ESG ratings of

risk of the fun

bal Bond ESG

s, in order torelative manage around at 1.in terms of risors are also abclimate stabi

for each of the

s and Managem

er exposures he sector of seer short-term rs are inflationfile. Global Bond can be interpr

f corporate iss

nd and benchm

BloInde(1.0

5.58

2.27

7,124.722.25

o homogenizegement costs t42%, while in

skiness the ESble to know thility, healthy ese themes (Fi

ment

in other secmi-governmeninstruments, wn-linked debt,

ESG fund prereted consideri

suers

mark.

omberg Barclayex

04%)

8%

7%

2 yy 2% 5% 1.18%

e the data wito the net perfn the case of tG fund has a m

he impact geneecosystems, rgure 6).

Vol. 15, N

ctors comparental instrumenwhere even it , covered bon

efers to investring the highly

ys Global Agg

ith the benchformances whthe benchmarmore containeerated for everesource secu

No. 8; 2020

red to the nts and, in prefers to

ds and the

t in issuers y selective

gregate

hmark, we hich, in the rk they are ed profile.

ery million urity, basic

ijbm.ccsen

Specificafocused Increasinon econoand longbusiness include himportancassess anUN SustaPIMCO tbond issu(emissionemissionsthe sum oCompaniinto the aterms. 4. DiscusThe globwith the ResponsibCommissof 2050.

net.org

ally, we have aheavily on b

ng evidence shmic risks and

g term, arise risks for ene

how climate ce also for the

nd monitor theainable Develto integrate cluers. The impns per barrel,s due, for exaof the tons ofes in which thatmosphere th

ssion and Conal political fra

UN Sustainble Banking,

sion, presentedThe financial

Int

Figure 6. GIS

analysed climabuilding interhows that the d credit risks. I

mainly from ergy transitionchange affecte bond sector, e alignment oflopment Goallimate changepact of emissi similar to o

ample to electf carbon dioxhe PIMCO Glhan the issuer

nclusions amework seemnable Develop

the inaugurad a strong incsystem can m

ternational Jour

S Global Bond

ate stability inrnal tools to energy transitIn particular, t

two factors:n, such as strts the naturalin 2019 Pimc

f the companis and the Par

e into its selecions is calculil and gas co

tricity purchasxide emitted folobal Bond ESrs in the Bar

ms to be increpment Goals,

ation speech oentive program

make a signific

rnal of Business

159

d ESG, Sustai

n more detail, assess clima

tion and the rithe investmen: transition riricter laws onl resources oco decided to iies in which itris Agreementction processelated by PIMompanies), wse, heating anfor each businSG Fund inve

rclays Global

easingly conv, the Paris Cof Ursula Vonmme to makecant contribut

s and Managem

inability result

as over the laate change riising global te

nt implicationsisks and physn carbon dioxon which the integrate climt invests and, t. One of the es is the intenCO through t

which takes innd cooling. Thness purpose tests emit moreAggregare In

verging towardClimate Chann Der Leyen, e Europe the fition to this su

ment

ts and metrics

ast period PIMisks for fixedemperature has of climate chsical risks- Txide emission

issuer depenmate change int

consequently,most importan

nsity of carbonthe use of pro

nto account bhe calculation to the respecte than five timndex, both in

ds a sustainabnge Agreemethe new Pres

first climate-frstainable conv

Vol. 15, N

s

MCO's ESG efd income invave a significahange, both in

Transition riskns, while physnds. Given itsto its ESG scr

y, its portfoliosant factor consn dioxide em

roduction-baseboth direct ann is made by ctive company mes less carbon absolute and

ble developmeents, the Prinsident of the ree continent bversion: the in

No. 8; 2020

fforts have vestments. ant impact n the short ks include sical risks s growing reening, to s, with the sidered by

missions by ed metrics nd indirect comparing revenues.

on dioxide d intensity

ent. In line nciples of European

by the end ntensity of

ijbm.ccsenet.org International Journal of Business and Management Vol. 15, No. 8; 2020

160

the result will depend on the commitment to seek a fair balance between financial and social performance. The intent of our analysis was to assess whether the use of ESG screening such as the one adopted by PIMCO for bond selection and the implementation of impact investing practices will affect investor performance. To date, the use of an esg filter seems to have a deterrent effect on investment volatility and seems to represent a competitive advantage in a long-term perspective. In the case of PIMCO Global Bond ESG, screening allows the fund to significantly reduce direct and indirect risks that can adversely affect the performance of issuing companies and, consequently, on the fund's portfolio, such as legal costs for social and environmental processes, expenses for business conversions, reputational damage, strikes and accidents at work, etc. We proposed the analysis of this case for the relevance of the asset managed by Pimco, the company's esg commitment, the complex screening process developed by the same company. The research contributes to studies investigating the relationships between esg approaches and performance and risks of investments. Further investigations may expand the analysis by referring the study of the phenomenon to a wider time horizon. References Bialkowski, J., & Starks, L. T. (2016). SRI Funds: Investor Demand, Exogenous Shocks and ESG Profiles. San

Francisco, CA, USA. Brest, P. A. Gilson, R. J., & Wolfson, M. A. (2018). How Investors Can (and Can't) Create Social Value.

European Corporate Governance Institute (ECGI) - Law Working Paper No. 394/2018; Stanford University Graduate School of Business Research Paper No. 18-23.

Brière, M., & Szafarz, A. (2017). Factor Investing: Risk Premia vs. Diversification Benefits. Paris December 2016 Finance Meeting EUROFIDAI – AFFI.

Brodback, D., Guenster, N., & Mezger, D. (2018). Altruism and Egoism in Investment Decisions (June 4, 2018). http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2978660

Capelle-Blancard, G., & Monjon, S. (2014). The Performance of Socially Responsible Funds: Does the Screening Process Matter? European Financial Management, 20(3), 494-520. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-036X.2012.00643.x

Durán-Santomil, P., Otero-González, L., Correia-Domingues, R. H., & Reboredo, J. C. (2019). Does Sustainability Score Impact Mutual Fund Performance? Sustainability, 11, 2972. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11102972

Duuren, V. E., Plantinga, A., & Scholtens, B. (2016). ESG Integration and the Investment Management Process: Fundamental Investing Reinvented. Journal of Business Ethics, 138(3), 525-533. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2610-8

Galagedera, D. (2019). Modelling social responsibility in mutual fund performance appraisal: A two-stage data envelopment analysis model with non-discretionary first stage output. European Journal of Operational Research. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2018.08.011

Grabenwarter, U. (2017). Solution-Driven Finance: The New Way of 'Impact First' Why Serving Organic Lobster on Titanic Won't Do the Trick (June 22, 2017). http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2990907

Halbritter, G., & Dorfleitner, G. (2015). The wages of social responsibility — where are they? A critical review of ESG investing. Review of Financial Economics, 26, 25-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rfe.2015.03.004-

Hong, H. G., & Kostovetsky, L. (2012). Red and Blue Investing: Values and Finance. Simon School Working Paper No. FR 09-06; EFA 2009 Bergen Meetings Paper. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1214382

Landier, A., & Nair, V.B. (2009). Investing for Change: Profit from Responsible Investment. Oxford University Press, Incorporated.

Moliterni, F. (2018). Sustainable Investing and Green Finance: Boosting Markets by Solving Ambiguities. FEEM Policy Brief No. 1.2018.

Schramade, W. (2017). Investing in the UN Sustainable Development Goals (May 16, 2017). http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2968791

Soler-Domínguez, A., & Matallín-Sáez, J. C. (2016). Socially (ir)responsible investing? The performance of the VICEX Fund from a business cycle perspective. Finance Research Letters, 16, 190-195.

Stern, P. C, Dietz, T., Abel, T., Guagnano, G. A., & Kalof1, L. (1999). A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: The case of environmentalism. Research in Human Ecology, 6(2), 81-97.

ijbm.ccsenet.org International Journal of Business and Management Vol. 15, No. 8; 2020

161

Tyler, J. E. (2018). Structuring for Action and Longevity in the Green Economy: Being Intentional About Committing to Social/Green Purposes, Connecting Effort and Impact, and Addressing Harm and Accountability. University of Missouri-Kansas City Law Review, 86(4).

Verheyden, T., Eccles, R. G., Feiner, A. (2016). ESG for All? The Impact of ESG Screening on Return, Risk, and Diversification. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 28(2), 47-55.

Weber, O. (2014). The financial sector's impact on sustainable development. Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment, 4(1), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1080/20430795.2014.887345

Wendt, K. (2017). Social Stock Exchanges - Democratization of Capital Investing for Impact (August 18, 2017). 30th Australasian Finance and Banking Conference 2017. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3021739

Wilson, K. E. (2016). Investing for Social Impact in Developing Countries. Development Co-operation Report 2016: The Sustainable Development Goals as Business Opportunities. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/dcr-2016-en

Copyrights Copyright for this article is retained by the author(s), with first publication rights granted to the journal. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).